Tele-Critical Care: An Update From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Tele-ICU Committee.

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the Tele-ICU Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine published an article regarding the state of ICU telemedicine, one better defined today as tele-critical care. Given the rapid evolution in the field, the authors now provide an updated review. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched PubMed and OVID for peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2018 related to significant developments in tele-critical care, including its prevalence, function, activity, and technologies. Search terms included electronic ICU, tele-ICU, critical care telemedicine, and ICU telemedicine with appropriate descriptors relevant to each sub-section. Additionally, information from surveys done by the Society of Critical Care Medicine was included given the relevance to the discussion and was referenced accordingly. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Tele-critical care continues to evolve in multiple domains, including organizational structure, technologies, expanded-use case scenarios, and novel applications. Insights have been gained in economic impact and human and organizational factors affecting tele-critical care delivery. Legislation and credentialing continue to significantly influence the pace of tele-critical care growth and adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-critical care is an established mechanism to leverage critical care expertise to ICUs and beyond, but systematic research comparing different models, approaches, and technologies is still needed.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.